America transitions into Gilead

[theprestige]

How anyone can posit that removing from a womb a pea-sized blob that is more a parasite (utterly dependent upon the host/mother) than a human as "murder" baffles me. After all, nature herself terminates no small number of such lumps of developing flesh.

Yes, I'm deliberately rendering as crude my point. But the *potentiality* of a human is not the same as a viable human.

Now, we *are* emotional, social creatures, and so identify with and wish to preserve human life from the earliest moment. Who better than the bearer of new life--the woman--to grapple with the momentous decision to terminate a pregnancy? Why does a large fraction of the community feel that they and their laws are the superior arbiter?

People die of natural causes all the time. We still sometimes call it murder when it's done to them on purpose. The "natural miscarriages aren't wrongful therefore intentional miscarriages can't be wrongful" argument is morally retarded.

 

[Meadmaker]

So... which is it ?

I think phiwum was making the point that the whole life/freedom comment was over the top hyperbole. It certainly is.


I was making a wry remark that sexual intercourse has always carried great risk for women. What was really in my head was the fact that I had just heard the song, from a poem by Rudyard Kipling, " the female of the species", especially the line "she who faces death by torture for each life beneath her breast".

 

[BStrong]

So?

And?

 

[Babbylonian]

I would take bets that I'm the only one in this thread who has actually read either law, and I would add 10:1 odds that I am the only one who has read both the new bill and the applicable sections of Georgia law that actually determine how the new law might be charged in light of the new bill.

But, hey, I'm perfectly willing to be corrected on that subject. You have read both bills haven't you? Along with section 16-5 of Georgia's code of laws, haven't you?

Deflection noted.

 

[carlitos]

And?

There's no shame in quitting a game that you can't win.


ETA - can someone give me even a hint to a link where the title of this thread makes sense? I found an old article about descending into Gilead, and skimmed through bible gateway, but nothing of significance seemed to have happened there.

Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

 

[Meadmaker]

So... which is it ?

We were making contrasting points.

Mine was more of a wry comment that sexual intercourse has always been dangerous for women. It was in my head because last night I heard the song "the female of the species", words by Kipling, especially the line "she who faces death by torture for each life beneath her breast."

 

[Meadmaker]

Deflection noted.

 

[Meadmaker]

ETA - can someone give me even a hint to a link where the title of this thread makes sense? I found an old article about descending into Gilead, and skimmed through bible gateway, but nothing of significance seemed to have happened there.

The handmaid's tale.

 

[theprestige]

There's no shame in quitting a game that you can't win.


ETA - can someone give me even a hint to a link where the title of this thread makes sense? I found an old article about descending into Gilead, and skimmed through bible gateway, but nothing of significance seemed to have happened there.

It's a Handmaid's Tale reference.

 

[carlitos]

Thanks². I am not at all upset that google's algorithm is smart enough to know that I don't want to know about that show. She was great in Mad Men, though.

 

[GlennB]

Murder assumes the victim to be a self-determining, self-sustaining, living, breathing, already existing, fully developed sentient being.

Using the word "murder" on something that's not all of the above, is what's known as the "appeal to emotion" fallacy.

Much as I detest the new law and the trends that surround it, I totally disagree with this.

A newly born baby misses some of those criteria, yet killing it would certainly amount to murder in my book.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Alabama falls into 6th place nationwide for unwed mothers. 9th place for teen birth rates. 3rd place for low birthweight rates (indicating poor prenatal healthcare by either the state medical system or the mother or both). And falls into 5th place for federal funding assistance.

Maybe their aim is to take 1st place in all of these categories?



I'm curious, will the State of Alabama be paying for all of the prenatal care for these women being forced to carry a pregnancy?

- Prenatal vitamins and supplements?

- Doctor/Ob-Gyn visits?

- Travel costs to and from the doctors office?

- Medical treatment for any complications that may arise during pregnancy (ie: gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, toxemia, pre-clampsia, etc)?

- The costs for potential physiotherapy if needed (pinched spine, hip displacement, etc)?

- The option for Lamaze classes?

- Pregnancy clothing? Or should they just ask to borrow their fat neighbour's yoga pants?

- Higher grocery bills due to higher food consumption and the need for healthier (thus costlier) food choices?

- The cost of delivering in a proper medical facility? The extra costs should a c-section be needed? The extra costs should an emergency D&C be needed?

- Wage losses due to a complicated pregnancy (excessive morning sickness, debilitating fatigue, ill health, etc), the amount of time to give birth (6-36 hours), and the individual mother's recovery time (1-30 days)?

... and then there's the post-natal healthcare for the mother, for the baby.


Or has Alabama not thought this all through yet?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Okay, so given the large number of unwanted babies this policy will inevitably produce, when is the increased budget for orphanages, adoption services and childcare going to make it's way through the legislature?

Buy prison industry stocks.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Were I religious, I'd reckon anybody who died afore there was a "me" there – before there was a mind that was aware – well, then... nobody's soul could go worship Jesus* in Heaven! Stands to reason, with all the depth of thought any mail-order preacher could handle. So, uh, wuts the fuss?


*Spelled "Geez, us!" in US red states.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Utter and complete hogwash.

If you are going to live in a fantasy world of your own making, why choose dystopia? Come up with some more pleasant delusions. It will lower your blood pressure.

It's not hogwash.

I can see a scenario where nosey neighbor calls the police on Suzie next door who went to California to get an abortion.

Wasn't there an attempt a few years back to force Planned Parenthood to release records so some police could review them looking for illegal abortions? I'm trying to remember the details so I can look it up.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who to believe, who to believe....

I think I found your problem.

Travis. Get off social media. It’s bad for you. You aren’t saving the world, you’re making yourself miserable.

How about believing the actual laws that are being passed.

Bill to Outlaw Miscarriages Enrages Left

Utah may punish women who lose fetus after 'reckless' action...

The bill, which has already passed both chambers of Utah’s legislature, would allow women to be charged with homicide if they committed an “intentional, knowing or reckless act” that led to a miscarriage. It was created after a woman allegedly paid a man to beat her until she miscarried.

But critics warned that the legal definition of “reckless” is so broad that women could be jailed for not wearing a seatbelt, or returning to an abusive spouse, notes Jezebel.

Women could get up to 30 years in prison for having a miscarriage under Georgia's harsh new abortion law

In addition to banning abortion after a heartbeat can be detected, the law's personhood provisions would seem to allow for women who perform their own abortions, travel out of state for an abortion, or are found to be responsible for a miscarriage to be charged with murder....

By defining fetuses as people, the law would appear to have implications far beyond those directly addressed in its text. State prosecutors, for example, might be able to charge women whose pregnancies end in miscarriage with second-degree murder, which carries a sentence of 10 to 30 years, if they can prove the miscarriage was a result of the woman's own conduct, like drug or alcohol use, as Slate argued.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To be fair, it isn't just morons on Twitter saying these things. There are a lot of almost mainstream sources, e.g. Slate, printing it.

These ideas are not in the bill, but might reasonably be said to be within the penumbras and emanations of the legislation.

What exactly is not in the bills you are referring to?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nope, that's something different. She isn't being charged for having a miscarriage.

If your response is that she's being falsely charged, well, that can happen with any law. Shall we legalize murder because people get wrongfully convicted?

And if your response is that inducing a miscarriage shouldn't be illegal, well, it's been illegal for a long time. Regardless of whether or not that law should be on the books, it's not a sign of some slide into dystopia.

I see your problem, you want these women charged with murder.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From WAPO:


The consequences are bad, no doubt. But women who have an abortion cannot be prosecuted under that bill, much less women who miscarry.

The bill is really horrible as written. You don't do your case any good by bungling fundamental issues like this.

ETA: Your erroneous claims have been pointed out in this thread previously, as early as post 4 with a link to a relevant and reputable article. Do you just not care?

You do know there are more than two states with these laws going through the state legislatures, right?

In addition, you are assuming all kinds of things like a perfect prosecution, no costs incurred defending one's natural miscarriage, no zealous prosecutor charging a woman based on all sorts of nonsense like smoking cigarettes while pregnant.

These states are passing religious extremist laws and you act like they will suddenly be rational enforcing them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Shocking as it is to you or me, it's what the vast majority of people in Alabama want. It's not as if the bill squeaked through, it was 25-6 in the Senate and 74-3 in the House.

It's a feature of a federal system, states have significant latitude and it's the reason why California can continue to have legal abortion even if the majority of states ban it.

The same goes for teaching creationism, banning sex education and making contraception difficult to get hold of - it's what the overwhelming majority of people in that state want. I don't understand it, but that's not important.

Those votes you are counting as the "vast majority" are the legislators, many no doubt from gerrymandered state districts.

What is your stance on abortion? - Results from Alabama voters

57% to 43%

I don't call that a "vast" majority.

USA Today: 25 men voted to ban abortion in Alabama. Do they reflect the rest of America?

On Tuesday, 25 white male Republicans in Alabama voted to ban abortion in the state at every stage of pregnancy, unless the mother’s physical or mental health is in jeopardy. If Gov. Kay Ivey signs the bill, it will become the most restrictive abortion law in the country.

A dozen states in 2019 have either passed or attempted to pass stricter abortion legislation. With the appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, anti-abortion activists and conservative lawmakers are betting the bans will lead to lawsuits that could push the high court to overturn Roe v. Wade, which recognizes a woman’s constitutional right to abortion.

But polling shows the recent abortion bans are out of line with most American's beliefs. "If you look at national polling, this isn't where the American public is and it frankly isn't even where mainstream Republicans are," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. "The harshness of it is pretty shocking."

This is not just a play to ban abortions, it is a move to re-elect Trump. The bills won't pass the SCOTUS and the GOP will use it (as planned) to keep Trump in power under the guise of getting one more SCOTUS judge from all those single issue voters.

I hope it backfires.